Wagner is currently in jail in Toronto awaiting trial after forcing her way into an abortion clinic in August — this after she was convicted in March of committing a similar offence last November.

In Rae’s opinion, Vellacott went even further over the line this week when he subsequently issued a news release which disclosed correspondence between himself and Wagner’s grateful mother.

The release carried the headline: “Intended as edification and encouragement for others.”

“By encouraging others, this could clearly be interpreted as inciting others to break the law, which in itself is a criminal offence,” Rae told The Canadian Press.

Rae said it’s up to the police to determine whether to pursue the matter.

But he added: “The broader question is this: Does Mr. (Prime Minister Stephen) Harper condone members of his caucus encouraging people to harass women seeking medical services and break the law?

“Whether a prosecution would be successful is not in my purview. But the issue of political responsibility is clear enough.”

Vellacott declined an interview. But a spokesman, Tim Bloedow, said the MP was not encouraging anyone to engage in one action or another, but instead was simply “lifting their spirits.”

The Supreme Court has set a high bar for convicting someone of inciting or counselling others to commit an illegal act, interpreting incitement to mean “actively inducing” someone to commit a crime.

Bernard Dickens, professor emeritus with the University of Toronto’s international reproductive and sexual health law program, said he doesn’t believe Vellacott has crossed that line. Nor has he ventured into new territory for a politician in praising someone engaged in civil disobedience.

Dickens pointed out that many Canadians, including politicians, supported Dr. Henry Morgentaler during the 1960s and 1970s, when he openly defied the laws that prohibited or limited a woman’s right to choose abortion.

Still, the Harper government has prided itself on its “tough on crime” agenda, cracking down on repeat offenders and those who incite crimes.

Just last week, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney issued guidelines under which he could use proposed new powers to bar foreigners from visiting Canada. The guidelines say the new law would apply to those who promote or encourage terrorism, incite hatred against a specific group or “promote, counsel, encourage or incite serious criminal activity.”

A spokeswoman for Justice Minister Rob Nicholson dodged repeated requests for comment on Rae’s assertion that Vellacott may have broken the law himself by inciting others to harass abortion clinics.

Julie Di Mambro responded by explaining how the Jubilee medals are awarded and then referring to comments made by Nicholson last week, before Vellacott issued his latest news release.

New Democrat MP Niki Ashton would not go so far as to say Vellacott may be inciting others to break the law. But she said it’s outrageous that Vellacott has rewarded women who’ve “broken the law to prevent women from accessing what is a fundamental right.”

“Obviously there’s multiple standards here,” she said of the Harper government’s apparent indifference to Vellacott’s actions.

In addition to Wagner, Vellacott has also nominated Linda Gibbons — another anti-abortion activist who has been charged repeatedly for encroaching on abortion clinics and harassing staff and patients — for a Diamond Jubilee medal.

In the correspondence released Wednesday, Jane Wagner thanks Vellacott for his “great courage in acknowledging the sacrifice” her daughter has made to save the lives of “babies who are about to be killed” and the mothers “who will be forever harmed by aborting their children.”

“I long for the day when Canada once again recognizes the sanctity of human life. Then the babies will be safe and my daughter can come home,” she writes.

In response, Vellacott tells Jane Wagner he was “moved to tears” by her gratitude.

“What a precious mother you are to accept the mission your daughter is called to, although your mother’s heart misses her dearly,” he says.

“When I read those words, I thought of all the ‘daughters who can’t come home’ because they were aborted in the womb and the anguished regret of some of those young moms as they realize that.

“I also thought of those ‘daughters who can come home’ because of the gentle counsel of Mary, as young women glimpsed a ray of hope, saw through the lie and chose life instead of death for their child.”

In awarding a Queen’s Diamond Jubilee Medal to two scofflaw anti-abortion activists — Mary Wagner, who is behind bars, and Linda Gibbons, who usually is — Saskatchewan MP Maurice Vellacott obviously knew he would cause a political stir.

Passionate and earnest about fetal rights he may be, but he will have known that comparing Ms. Wagner, who storms into abortion clinic waiting rooms to offer women unwanted “counselling,” with Martin Luther King Jr., would be seen by the pro-choice mainstream and everyone to the left of it as naked incitement.

Only last month, a surprising number of Conservative MPs, including eight cabinet ministers, voted for Steven Woodworth’s motion to study the legal definition of personhood. Much noise ensued. Mr. Vellacott no doubt hopes to keep up the din.

Related

One might reasonably consider this a cynical use of a medal honouring the long reign of our splendid Queen. Many are bemoaning the “politicization” of the medal-awarding process — and they’re not wrong to do so. But it’s much more complicated than one issue and one MP.

First of all, regardless of Mr. Vellacott’s motives, I don’t see a prima facie case against Ms. Wagner’s and Ms. Gibbons’ medals. There is nothing in the rules to prohibit it. And Henry Morgentaler’s Order of Canada is something of a precedent here, as Mr. Vellacott has said. His brand of civil disobedience landed him in jail several times and, if not for some famously stubborn jurors, might have kept him there considerably longer.

The difference is obvious: Dr. Morgentaler’s position on abortion was ultimately vindicated. But breaking the law is always illegal, and he was invested in the Order, in part, for “his determined efforts to influence Canadian public policy.” That’s awfully close to an endorsement of civil disobedience. Ms. Gibbons and Ms. Wagner also wish to influence Canadian public policy, and no one should doubt their sincerity or determination — a willingness to go to jail being a pretty good litmus test for both. If Mr. Vellacott hadn’t given them their medals, some other pro-life individual or organization that happened to have 30 of them lying around out might well have done so.

What makes these medals political is less their recipients, in other words, than the person who gave them out. Here’s a basic rule of thumb: If an MP decides of his own volition to pin a medal on your chest, no matter how worthy your work and no matter how sincere that MP’s appreciation for it, you are probably in the realm of politics. Indeed it would be surprising, I think, if the complete list of recipients, due in February, didn’t include a few other controversial choices, designed by their benefactors to make some statement or other. There are, after all, 60,000 of the things.

The most political thing about the process, however — and the most annoying, if you ask me — is the automatic awarding of the medals to politicians themselves: not just to every member of Parliament and the Senate, no matter how gormless (ahoy there, Rob Anders!) or mindlessly partisan, but to the provincial premiers and territorial commissioners, and to every last member of the Queen’s Privy Council, no matter how undistinguished or forgotten or brief his or her service.

Others on Canada’s Order of Precedence receiving medals automatically are the governors general present and former, the provincial lieutenant governors and the justices of the Supreme Court. The only other people getting them automatically are members of the Order of Canada and recipients of the Cross of Valour, Canada’s highest reward for bravery — dead-obvious choices. But wouldn’t it also have made sense to hand them out to recipients of this country’s many already existing honours — for military officers, police, firefighters, poets, musicians, sculptors, athletes, people who corral runaway baby carriages, etc. — as well? (Admittedly, most of the organizations in charge of such honours seem to be involved with the medal program as so-called “non-governmental partners.”) Leaving so many in the hands of politicians and various special interest organizations — the list includes not just women’s and cultural and religious groups, but the Canola Council, the Direct Sellers Association and the Canadian Snowbird Association — seems overly complicated and an invitation to politicization.

Is the justice system infallible? Is every law just, every police investigation done fairly; does every trial arrive at the truth, is every sentence reasonable? Of course not. Yet there is a widespread conceit that every outcome of the criminal proceeding is owed deference as if it were adjudicated by King Solomon himself.

The news that MP Maurice Vellacott nominated two long-time pro-life protestors, convicted of violating various “temporary” injunctions that make it illegal to protest at abortion clinics, elicited disapproval from those who consider simply being convicted in a court to disqualify one from receiving honours. Also in the news this week: Conrad Black, in a boisterous exchange on British television, challenged the notion that an American criminal conviction ought to be considered valid by fair-minded Brits and Canadians.

Lord Black quoted in his defence Henry David Thoreau, on the question of civil disobedience: “Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison.”

Black’s case is not one of civil disobedience, but the cases of Linda Gibbons and Mary Wagner certainly are. Both are non-violent Canadian protestors who have been repeatedly jailed — in Wagner’s case for over 10 years, on and off — for violating temporary injunctions of dubious legality limiting free speech rights. In Wagner’s case, the frail grandmother has been repeatedly arrested for violating a temporary injunction now two decades old.

The default position, understandable enough in a place that considers itself a decent society, is that our justice system is one of such wisdom and probity that all fair-minded citizens ought to conclude that its findings of criminality are to be considered not only findings of law but of sound moral judgment. Someone who has run afoul of the law is, by that very fact alone, guilty in law and suspect of character.

All of which is perhaps necessary to sustain general support for public order, but cannot withstand any serious encounter with America’s prison-industrial complex, or even our own Canadian criminal justice system, as a long parade of false convictions has made abundantly manifest.

Back to Thoreau, who in 1848 delivered a series of lectures on civil disobedience, protesting the “government machine” of injustice, motivated largely by his opposition to slavery and the Mexican-American war:

“The proper place today, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less desponding spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles. It is there that the fugitive slave, and the Mexican prisoner on parole, and the Indian come to plead the wrongs of his race, should find them; on that separate, but more free and honourable ground, where the State places those who are not with her, but against her — the only house in a slave State in which a free man can abide with honor.”

It is the contention of Gibbons and Wagner that in a society that lavishes tax dollars upon abortion for any reason at any time — something nearly unique in the world — but imprisons those who silently protest at the clinics, the honourable place is not with the state, but to be imprisoned by the state.

Thoreau’s protest about slavery and the Mexican-American war might seem out of date to us in 21st-century Canada, but the reference to Indians should sting. A regular visitor to Canada’s prisons would be struck by the high rates of incarceration of our aboriginal citizens, even as an American ought to question why a better place to encounter young black men is in prison rather than a college campus.

As a priest who works on campus myself, I am struck that students who know next to nothing about theology, law or history think they know a great deal about the Inquisition, and its attendant horrors. Inquisitors about the Inquisition are a hazard of the job. I usually ask them, as they heap condemnations upon Spanish justice hundreds of years ago, whether they are similarly moved by the plight of the unjustly imprisoned today. There likely are more innocent men in American jails today than the entirety of cases handled by the Inquisition over centuries. And as for Canada, consider what similarly smug students might think a half-millennium from now about the rate at which we throw our native people in jail.

All of which is not to pronounce on particular cases, much less to excuse one injustice by the existence of a greater one. It is rather to invoke a degree of humility about the ability of our criminal justice system to achieve justice. Object to the medals for Gibbons and Wagner on whatever grounds you wish, but not on the grounds that our criminal justice system has weighed them in the balance. It is the system that is to be found wanting.

OTTAWA — Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott, who gave Diamond Jubilee medals to two anti-abortion activists who have been jailed repeatedly, calls them “heroines of humanity.”

Vellacott gave one of his 30 allotted medals to Mary Wagner, whose aggressive actions “counselling” women in abortion clinics have repeatedly landed her behind bars.

The Saskatchewan MP also gave one to Linda Gibbons, another longtime pro-life advocate and frequent convict on mischief charges.

Wagner, 38, is currently in jail in Toronto awaiting trial after entering a clinic in August — this following a conviction earlier in the summer for a similar offence last November when she attempted to force her way into a Toronto clinic’s private treatment area.

Like Martin Luther King and other human rights reformers, Mary is using civil disobedience to further a just cause

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson was not bothered by the awards, saying it is up to Vellacott to address the matter. Nicholson said that he personally is very happy to have awarded Diamond Jubilee medals to victims of crime.

A news release from Vellacott’s office said the MP couldn’t award medals “to the victims of crime, because these baby victims are dead.”

“It’s a pretty upside down world when we honour abortionists like Henry Morgentaler for killing over 5,000 babies and imprison precious women, like Mary Wagner and Linda Gibbons, who try to save babies from such savagery,” the news release said.

Vellacott likened Wagner to Martin Luther King Jr.

“Like Martin Luther King and other human rights reformers, Mary is using civil disobedience to further a just cause,” he said.

“Peaceful civil disobedience is an appropriate method when trying to protect defenceless, voiceless human beings in the womb from butchery and death.”

Re: It’s Not Suicide, June 18.
It is tragic that people with terminal illnesses, like Gloria Taylor, have concluded that physician-assisted death is the only way to relieve their suffering. Excellent palliative care is available in this country, so no one needs to fear dying in excruciating pain or indignity.
It is astounding that we are courting physician-assisted dying, something the ancient Greeks rejected over 2,500 years ago. Before Hippocrates, a physician was either a healer or killer, depending on the intentions of the highest bidder for his services. Hippocrates and generations since have recognized that only physicians who pledge never to kill can be trusted with our care when we are most vulnerable.
As a physician, my concern is not theoretical. A few years ago I admitted to hospital an elderly woman with a fluctuating level of consciousness. When I ordered that she be given intravenous fluids, before a diagnosis had even been made, some of the nursing staff accused me of being overly aggressive and lacking in compassion. The woman eventually regained consciousness and, ironically, asked for water. Had euthanasia/physician assisted suicide been legal, fighting on her behalf would have been even more difficult.
It is ironic, too, in an age when the authority and integrity of every institution, from the church to government, is questioned, that proponents of physician-assisted dying are so eager to give physicians, (who can be just as fallible and corrupt as politicians, lawyers and clerics) the power to kill. Dr. Joseph Askin, Calgary.

What is a life worth living? Can we really decide when someone should die? A few years ago a close friend of mine in his late 70s became gravely ill. He seemed so close to death that doctors felt there was nothing more they could do, and disconnecting medical aid was suggested. One brave doctor decided to try a new treatment and it worked.
My friend has completely recovered and returned to his work giving retreat workshops all around the world. He continues to touch so many lives. Had we given up hope and “pulled the plug,” this world would be a less-rich place without the benefit of his wisdom and experience.
Let’s not teach our kids that their value is only based on externals like youth, productivity and financial success — that is what our eagerness to do away with old age, frailty and weakness does. Let’s make the phrase “Respect the elderly” something more than lip service. Anna Eastland, Vancouver.

What do we do about prostitution?

In 75 words or fewer, tell us if Canada should ban, tax, legalize, regulate or license prostitutes. Or maybe you have a new idea. Send succinct replies to letters@nationalpost.com by Friday at 2 p.m., with results published on Monday, June 5.

More hypocrisy from the UN

Re: ‘Selfish’ UN Is Picking On Quebec, Graeme Hamilton, June 19.
Canada seems to be in the United Nation’s crosshairs these days. First it was the UN food rapporteur taking us to task over our failure to deal properly with food shortages among the poor in this country. Then there were criticisms by a UN panel on how we deal with war criminals and the recent changes to how we deal with refugees. Now we are being called on the carpet for human rights violations related to Quebec’s Bill 78, which was designed to rein in student protests. One is left to speculate how things might be different if we had only we had followed along with all the UN’s wacky proposals and vast money transfers that were the hallmarks of its climate change program. Jeff Spooner, Kinburn, Ont.

Once again we have an arm of the United Nations showing its ignorance. How dare Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, to have the gall to mention Quebec in the same breath as North Korea, Zimbabwe, South Sudan when it comes to free speech – and not mentioning Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, Cuba and a few other countries where a wrong word will get you jail time or worse. Why doesn’t the UN do something useful for a change, like sending in troops to stop the pot-banging brats who are causing traffic jams, impeding people from getting to work, damaging private property and preventing real students from getting on with their education? Fred K. Lee, Montreal.

How did Navi Pillay get this nice job as the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights? She shows a complete lack of knowledge to compare Quebec rights to those of Sudan and North Korea. And most Canadian provinces have similar restrictions against mass demonstrations, as do most other democratic countries around the world. Is there a prerequisite for becoming commissioner, or can anyone who doesn’t know all the facts apply? Brian Toogood, Toronto.

Jean Charest has been compared to Robert Mugabe by the UN? Fortunately, Quebec’s premier is used to outrageous abuse. When he led the Progressive Conservative party in the House of Commons, Reform MP Darrel Stinson referred to him as a “fat little, chubby, little sucker.” Bloc Québécois MP Suzanne Tremblay pointed out that his original name was John, in order to discredit him with his fellow Quebecers. He will survive this attack, too. Ronald Charles Epstein, Toronto.

In defence of veiling the face

Re: Just Ban The Burka, June 15.
Comments made by letter-writer Jiti Khanna are very enlightening as to what perceptions are found among some Westerners regarding Muslim women who choose to wear the burka. Being a practising Muslim woman, I have never found my hijab to be “subjugating.” I feel just as liberated as any Western woman — even much more. The hijab teaches a Muslim woman to think beyond merely attracting attention towards herself and to focus on beautifying the soul, since that is where the true contentment lies. Muslim woman do not need your sympathy and we can speak for ourselves when need be. Saira Nargis, Brampton, Ont.

A lot of people say that the burka or purdah (veil) has no place in the public life of a Western woman, but we need to remember that there are moral and social hazards if the veil is discarded completely. The institution of purdah is not for the subjugation of women but its objective is to guard the moral conditions of the society. We need to remember that prevention is better than cure, and by adopting modest dressing and veiling, woman in Western society can be free from problems such as adultery, teenage pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. Naila Jamil, Toronto.

Respect for human dignity predates Christianity

Re: The ‘Persecution’ Of Linda Gib­bons, letters to the editor, June 19.
Letter-writer Rita Larsen writes that “our nation was built on the principles of Christianity and its respect for human life.” Although Christianity is the religion of the majority here, Canada is secular. Our social, political and judicial systems are rooted in ethical monotheism, the Judeo-Christian ethic, that is the foundation of Western culture and civilization. Respect for human dignity predates Christianity by 1,500 years. Diane Weber Bederman, Caledon, Ont.

A vote for and against the JDL

Re: “Hate” Groups, letters to the editor, June 19; In Support Of The Jewish Defense League, letter to the editor, June 16.
The Jewish Defense League is vocally pro-Israel and marches in the pro-Israel march for Israel to show its support for Israel. Queers Against Israeli Apartheid (QuAIA) is vocally anti-Israel and marches in a pro-gay parade to show their support for whom? Gays in Israel? Gay Palestinians? There is a logical disconnect with the QuAIA and the Gay Pride parade. Whatever one may think of the JDL, at least it is marching in the right parade. There is a very legitimate issue in the lack of vocal support by the Toronto gay community for their gay Palestinian brothers and sisters. It is an opportunity that is sadly missed by them. Bashing Israel or the JDL does not help at all. Gary Rose, Toronto.

I cannot let your readers think the Jewish Defence League is not “strident.” It is worse than strident. Its members bully. I know, as I’ve been on the receiving end of their “stridency.”
Doesn’t anyone else find it strange that to march in the Pride Parade opposing Israeli policies is considered to be political, whereas to march in support of Israel is not? Elizabeth Block, Toronto.

Not all of our soldiers deserve tax relief

Re: Defining Dangerous, June 19.
When my regiment deployed to Cyprus on a routine peacekeeping mission in 1990, we received a small stipend to compensate us for the inconvenience of serving overseas. When I deployed to Somalia a couple of years later, we received considerably more compensation, due to the obvious increase in danger and hardship involved. My generation of soldiers considered that sensible and fair. While I recognize that serving at a headquarters in Kosovo or Tampa Bay is an important military function, it’s not exactly the first wave at Juno Beach.
I thank Lt.-Col. Michael Goodspeed and others for their service, but sorry, deploying abroad shouldn’t automatically entitle one to a tax-free exemption. Let’s save that for the soldiers who served outside the wire in Afghanistan. Matt Watson, (formerly with the Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry), Burlington, Ont.

In praise of psychiatry

Re: Forced Medication Saved My Life, Erin L. Hawkes, June 18.
“A society should be judged for its provision for this greatest of human miseries.” Those words were spoken by a chief justice in 1846 at the cornerstone laying of what came to be the infamous Provincial Lunatic Asylum at 999 Queen St. W. in Toronto.
Thursday marks the grand opening celebration of the campus of the (renamed) Centre for Addiction and Mental Health with three “redevelopment buildings,” one labelled the “Intergenerational wellness centre.”
Monday’s courageous testament by Erin L. Hawkes supports psychiatric intervention, which saves the lives of involuntary patients. This in refreshing contrast to the criticisms of psychiatric “survivors.” Imperfect as it may be, psychiatry is committed to helping even those who cannot recognize that they are ill. Mary McKim (retired psychiatrist), London, Ont.

Shattered lives and our justice system

Re: When The Charge Is Perversion, Clogged Courts Can Ruin Lives, Jonathan Kay, June 19.
Little thought is given to those whose lives are ruined through unjust convictions and unjust charges. The liberal media go into a frenzy to ensure a convicted killer is treated well in prison, but virtually ignore a man’s life destroyed by false sex charges.
It would be instructive to know what happened to the mother who fabricated the sexually explicit emails that destroyed Ray Collingham’s life — I would be willing to bet not much.
I would rather 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man jailed. It’s time to look at our legal system and that innocent shattered lives it leaves behind. David Bowland, Bobcaygeon, Ont.

Napoleon almost didn’t meet his Waterloo

Re: The British Strike Back, June 18.
This story tells us that Britain achieved victory over Napoleon in Europe in early 1814. Napoleon was indeed defeated by the allied coalition in 1814 and exiled to Elba. But he returned to France the following year and regained power for a period known as the Hundred Days. He mustered an army, marched into Belgium and defeated the Prussians on June 16, 1815. Two days later, with a force of 72,000 he met the allied armies of 68,000 strong comprising of British, Dutch, Belgian and German units, commanded by the Duke of Wellington. The Battle of Waterloo on June 18, 1815 was a savage one and Napoleon was in sight of victory when the Prussians arrived to reinforce the British. The history of Europe would have drastically changed had Napoleon not made a tactical blunder.
History records that on the night on June 17, it rained heavily. The next day was sunny and warm and Napoleon decided to delay the opening attack on Wellington, from morning until midday, to allow the ground to dry, assuming rightly, that the cavalry charge would be more effective.
Victory was almost in the grasp of Napoleon and the allied forces under Wellington were staring defeat in the face. Fortunately for Wellington, that delay by Napoleon gave Prussia’s army of 45,000 time to come to Wellington’s defence. The rest is history. Leslie Michael, Maple Ridge, B.C.

Re: Granting Right To Die, June 16.
At last! The law banning assisted suicide, that we inherited from the British 120 years ago, was struck in the BC Supreme Court. Justice Lynn Smith found that the present law infringes on the rights to life, liberty and security of the person that are guaranteed to us under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. She noted that even the best palliative care cannot relieve all suffering and that some of the currently accepted medical practices are very similar to physician-assisted death. She confirmed that in European countries and in Oregon and Washington, where medically assisted dying has been legal for some years, the safeguards that are in place to prevent abuse of the weak and the vulnerable have been effective.
This decision supports the recommendations made in the last few months and contained in the reports of both the Royal Society of Canada and of the National Assembly in Quebec. We now have three very thorough and diverse examinations of the question of medically assisted dying. They have all reached the same conclusion that now is the time for Canadians to have access to help and compassion when they need it most. John Warren, vice-president, Dying With Dignity, Lethbridge, Alta.

… or is it just another form of killing?

Last week’s decision by the B.C. Supreme Court, striking down the ban on assisted suicide, is a tragedy and must be appealed. We already have ample evidence of the abuses which occur in other countries where assisted suicide is permitted, despite stringent regulations and “safeguards.” This decision is yet another slide down the slippery slope of the culture of death, which began with the legalizing of abortion in certain situations and has ended in allowing it for any reason. A society which prefers killing to caring has no future. Jessica White, West Vancouver, B.C.

I was trying to understand what Gloria Taylor must be going through when I read that “she cried with relief” to find out she has been given the right to have a physician help her kill herself when she is ready to do so.
Do you think she sees herself as a burden to society and is relieved that now we have given her permission to end her life and we will help her to do it? What has become of our world? Have we gone mad? Judge Smith’s ruling not only affects Ms. Taylor but also affects all of us. I appeal to my fellow Canadians to take a moment and think of where this mindset will lead us.
We have already seen how our culture has changed drastically regarding the value of life and human dignity since abortion has become a right. I cannot imagine what will happen if euthanasia and assisted suicide becomes also an accepted way of life. God forgive us. Rhonda Wood, Brampton, Ont.

Thoughts on prostitution

Re: Third Teenage Girl Arrested In Alleged Human Trafficking Case, June 16.
Surely there is a better way for the police and the community to respond to the violence against these girls. Why are the men who are buying sex from 13-year-olds getting away with it? Where are the men who will speak up against the paid rape of women and girls? The most “shocking” thing about this case is that if the people accused of pimping out these girls were men, this story would not even be deemed newsworthy. Katie Streibel, Vancouver.

Shouldn’t the common expression that prostitution is “the world’s oldest profession” read “one of the world’s oldest professions” as that list includes farming and child rearing? And prostitution is linked to another “old profession” — slavery, especially since the women involved often aren’t acting on their own free will in their “chosen” trade. Charles Leduc, Vancouver.

The ‘persecution’ of Linda Gibbons

Re: The Prosecution Of Linda Gibbons, editorial, June 16.
The National Post has guts. Your editorial on the double standards that exist for pro-life supporters exposes the hypocrisy in our judicial system by showing that animal-right activists have more rights then anti-abortion supporters. Where are our courageous politicians to say what your editorial so clearly identifies? Mark Vosylius, King City, Ont.

Thank God for the National Post speaking the truth. You said every word I would love to say on the topic but I don’t have the power of the press like you do. Marg Baker, Toronto.

Linda Gibbons never defended herself in court; she remained silent, aligning herself with the unborn who have no voice. That’s courage. It is good to know the legality of her imprisonment, the flaws in our own laws. Our nation was built on the principles of Christianity, and its respect for human life. If it’s legal to abort an unborn, if it’s legal to assist someone else to die, with the present push for euthanasia, how safe is my own life? Rita Larsen Marrocco, Cobourg, Ont.

The second coming of Trudeau

Re: Damned If He Does. But More Damned If He Doesn’t, Rex Murphy, June 16.
The incessant hubris about the “Second Coming” of Trudeau is reminiscent of Marx’s observation on Hegel’s contention that all great world-historic facts and personages appear twice. Marx added “the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. Caussidiere for Danton, Louis Blanc for Robespierre, the Montagne of 1848 to 1851 for Montagne of 1793 to 1795, the nephew for the uncle.” Dare we say the same for Trudeau (pére) and Trudeau (fils)? Erol Araf, Pierrefonds, Que.

Niagara Falls and its daredevils

Re: ‘It’s A Beautiful View,’ June 16.
Now that Nik Wallenda has managed to cross Niagara Falls without falling, I am reminded of what happened on Sept. 15, 1860, when the Prince of Wales watched the famous Blondin tightrope over the gorge. Earlier in the summer Blondin was competing furiously with another funambulist, Farini, for the right to be seen by the Prince. What may have made the difference was a letter Blondin wrote on Aug. 22 to the Duke of Newcastle, who led the Prince’s entourage, offering “to take the heir apparent to the British throne across the Falls in a wheelbarrow, on a high rope, free of expense.” The crossing would be “diversified” by “fireworks and various gymnastic feats.” Blondin said he would also take the Duke across if desired, and then made the extraordinary pledge that: “If any accident should happen by which his Highness or any members of his party should be precipitated into the gulf below (of which I assure you there is little or no danger) the money taken from the spectators shall be promptly and conscientiously refunded.” Alun Hughes, Thorold, Ont.

Memories of an old hippie

Re: The Port Huron Statement, plus 50, Jonathan Kay, June 15.
Jonathan Kay expressed curiosity in his recent column about the views of the radicals of the 1960s. We’re not all dead yet, Mr. Kay. I remember an event in Montreal in the early 1970s, when a group of us were planning a protest march against the war in Vietnam. We held a meeting at the home of a wealthy Montreal businessman whom we had heard claimed to be a member of the communist party. “Welcome to his humble proletarian dwelling,” said the friend who drove me over to a huge, elegant mansion on the side of the mountain.
One of the group was a woman from the United Sates, who was going to go back home with our message and recruit people to come up to Canada to join the march. We started working on a slogan. The first one was a few words long, but our U.S. friend told us: “My people don’t go in for a lot of reading.” So we pressed on, eventually settling for “STOP.” She seemed to think “her people” could handle that.
That was my last peace march, where I marched behind a large picture of chairman Mao.
Information is a good thing. Perhaps this will add some to Mr. Kay’s search for knowledge of the thought processes of ’60s radicals. Ruth Cameron, Toronto.

A little rejection builds character

Re: Father’s Love Moulds Personality, Studies Say, June 15.
The international studies conclusion that paternal rejection produces low self esteem, feelings of inadequacy, unresponsiveness and instability in the child made me think of the pre-eminent statesman of the 20th century. Winston Churchill was famously rejected and ignored by his father, Lord Randolph Churchill, yet acquired enormous strength of character; sufficient to mobilize the preservation of democracy for us all.
In this age of narcissism perhaps a modicum of parental disapproval could be helpful in character building. As Johnny Cash’s A boy named Sue learnt, it was rejection that gave him the “gravel in his gut and the spit in his eye.” Don Thomson, Toronto.

‘Hate’ groups

Re: Do We Have To Do This Every Year?, Jonathan Kay, June 12.
The Jewish Defense League that is allowed to march in the annual Walk with Israel, was declared by the FBI a “right-wing Jewish terrorist group.” The U.S. State Department designated the JDL’s Israeli affiliates, the Kahane Chai and the Kach as “foreign terrorist organizations” — a decision upheld by a U.S. Appeals Court. Kach member Baruch Goldstein massacred 29 Palestinians praying in the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron.
In 2001, the JDL’s leader, Canadian Irv Rubin and member Earl Krugel, were convicted of planning a terror attack in California against an Arab American congressman. Why is this violent group welcome in Toronto, while Queers Against Israeli Apartheid stirs a hornets’ nest of opposition? Scott Weinstein, Montreal.

Re: In Support Of The Jewish Defense League, June 16.
Letter-writer Jonathan Usher takes issue with my alleged use of the word “strident” to describe the Jewish Defense League (JDL). In fact, it was the National Post that substituted the phrase “stridently right-wing” for my original description of the JDL as a “hate group.”
Perplexingly, the Post allowed Mr. Usher to describe Queers Against Israeli Apartheid (QuAIA) with the very phrase they would not permit me to use for the JDL despite the fact that it is the JDL, not QuAIA, which, according to both the FBI and the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai Brith, has a long history of hate crimes and terrorist acts stretching back to the 1970s. Accordingly, it is the height of hypocrisy that the same groups and individuals, including several city councilors, who try to get QuAIA banned from the Pride parade have no problem participating in the Walk with Israel alongside the JDL and have no trouble with city funds being used to police the event and clean up afterwards. Morris Cohen, Toronto.

Bad taste bikers

On Saturday, a naked bike ride started near where I live in Toronto. I saw it while walking my dog. Maybe it was a protest. Maybe it was a community building event. It was not for me.
For such august events, the ideal place to strip and mount a bike is, apparently, the war memorial at Coronation Park. Imagine a veterans’ monument swarming with naked ex-hippies saddling their bikes. Septuagenarians aside, these protesters demonstrated a terrifying lack of taste. Lest we forget indeed. Murphy Macneil O’Connor, Toronto.

Re: Speaking Their Mind, Chris Selley, June 15.
I, too, applaud Danielle Smith’s refusal to apologize for Allan Hunsperger’s remarks (that gays will “suffer the rest of eternity in the lake of fire, hell, a place of eternal suffering”), although not for the same reason Chris Selley does.
Mr. Selley seems to think freedom of speech is so beleaguered in Canada that we need people like Smith to remind us that a few mean words won’t hurt us. I think freedom of speech, and freedom of religion are alive and well, as evidenced during the Wildrose campaign, and that Ms. Smith’s refusal to take responsibility for one of her fellow candidates speaks volumes about the type of leader she would have been. In the end, Albertans exercised their freedom to vote by rejecting the bigoted views, firewall politics and regressive outlook of the Wildrose party.
Every time Ms. Smith gives tacit approval of Hunsperger’s appalling remarks by passing the buck, she reminds us why we didn’t elect her as premier of Alberta, and for this I am grateful.
Sarah Stelfox, Calgary.

Access is a right that belongs to the child

Re: A Powerful Blow For Fathers’ Rights, editorial, June 15.
Tim Loughton, the United Kingdom’s children’s minister, has announced his intention to strengthen access rights, but the laws are far from being “rewritten.” There is significant opposition across the country to his proposals, largely because his reforms would place the rights of parents above that of the children. The Family Justice Review, concluded in 2011, decided that Mr. Loughton’s proposal would not address the problem of parental alienation.
Access is a right that belongs to the child, and not the parents. This legal principle, shared in Canada and the U.K., ensures that the courts are looking at the long-term consequences of decisions, rather than the short-term goals that many conflict-driven litigants in the family law system focus on.
Not surprisingly, British family lawyers have overwhelmingly opposed Mr. Loughton’s proposals, even though its usually the parents of these children who pay the legal fees. Current statistics suggest that judges in the U.K. already rule for joint access in 99.7% of family law cases, meaning that their courts do not routinely assign sole custody to mothers unless there is very good reason to do so.
What would help alleviate the problem of parental alienation is reducing the delays in our family courts. Although this requires greater investment by our government, it also means that couples going through a divorce need to overcome their emotions enough to compromise for the sake of their kids. The father deficit is best met through public education, and reminders at every step in the divorce process that both parents are invaluable to childhood development. Omar Ha-Redeye, general manager, My Support Calculator, Toronto.

As the old adage goes …

Re: Douglas Doesn’t Deserve Witch Hunt, Christie Blatchford, June 15.
In Christie Blatchford’s opinion, Manitoba Associate Chief Justice Lori Douglas is “the victim of a witch hunt.” Ms. Blatchford reports that in completing the personal history form required in connection with Judge Douglas’s appointment to the bench, she responded “No” to the question: “Is there anything in your past or present which could reflect negatively on yourself or the judiciary, and which should be disclosed?”
Ms. Blatchford refers to this as “alleged failure to disclose” since the judge’s personal history was well known (“her lawyer husband Jack King had posted sexually explicit pictures of her on a website, advertising her alleged fondness for black men”). But there was nothing “alleged” about the judge’s response to the question. It was a misstatement, or, in lay terms, a bold-faced lie. The question was clear; the answer should have been clear, unequivocal and truthful, especially in the context of an application to serve in the judiciary.
One can agree with Ms. Blatchford’s opinion (as I do) that judge Douglas is not receiving a fair shake. But that is merely an opinion. Ms. Blatchford should be reminded of the adage that people are entitled to their own opinions but not to their own facts. Al Lando, Toronto.

In support of the Jewish Defence League

Re: The Trouble With Parades, letter to the editor, June 14.
Morris Cohen’s letter is based on ignorance, bias and fear. The Canadian Jewish Defence League is a small group of people who publicly oppose hate groups such as the Queers Against Israeli Apartheid. How can committed Jews marching in a pro-Israel parade be compared with an anti-Israel group marching in a Gay Pride parade? The Jewish Defence league is not “strident” but proud to be Jewish, pro-Israel and Canadian. Jonathan Usher, Toronto.

Teach students how to think

Re: Problems Abound In Our Schools, letter to the editor, June 15.
Letter-writer Richard Rumble hit the nail on the head. As a former student of his, not only was I held to a high standard, but I was also taught how to think — not what to think.
I believe this is an important distinction to be made.
As a second-year university student at the University of Toronto, I encounter many students from a variety of different educational backgrounds. Many of them have simply been taught what to think, not how to think or question. I believe this is a fundamental skill that all people should hold, not only in academic endeavours, but also in all aspects of life. Lack of critical thought leads to an enlarged sense of entitlement, individual problems become the responsibility of government to solve — an attitude counter-productive to a functioning society. Eric Williams, Toronto.

Unlikely ‘bigot’

Re: The Word Of God Cannot Be Chained, Father Raymond J. de Souza, June 15.
Father Raymond J. de Souza’s visit to the Ebenezer Baptist Church contains a bit of irony. In 1960, Martin Luther King Senior announced that he would not vote for John F. Kennedy or any Roman Catholic for president. JFK made a humorist riposte — he had not expected Martin Luther King’s father “to be a bigot.” Gary Waller, Toronto.

Linda Gibbons deserves an Order of Canada

Re: Crown Drops Anti-Abortion Activist’s Case, June 15.
Imagine my joy at reading that the “Crown has ended attempts to keep an anti-abortion activist [Linda Gibbons] jailed.”
Her prosecution (or shall we say “persecution”?) was a travesty of justice. I and countless others view her imprisonment as being a blight on Canada’s legal system.
Justice, love, peace and righteousness will and must prevail if this country is to heal. In my opinion, Linda Gibbons deserves to receive the Order of Canada for her unceasing protest. Art Blokhuis, Burlington, Ont.

Just wondering if the Crown will prosecute, just as vigorously, the Montreal student rioters who defied repeated court orders to stay away from classrooms and stop harassing other students on the Quebec campuses as they have Ms. Gibbons? I doubt it. Double standards prevail everywhere when liberal dogma is being preserved. Sharon Maclise, Edmonton.

]]>http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/todays-letters-a-lesson-for-wildrose/feed0stdwildrose protestKelly McParland: No court is too clogged to prevent the pursuit of an elderly woman and her abortion pamphletshttp://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/kelly-mcparland-no-court-is-too-clogged-to-prevent-the-pursuit-of-an-elderly-woman-and-her-abortion-pamphlets
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/kelly-mcparland-no-court-is-too-clogged-to-prevent-the-pursuit-of-an-elderly-woman-and-her-abortion-pamphlets#commentsFri, 15 Jun 2012 13:43:37 +0000http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/?p=81941

As a three-part series in the National Post demonstrated, the judicial system in Ontario is so clogged with backlogs and delays that it threatens to grind to a halt. But prosecutors are never so weighed down with work that they can’t find time to pursue another charge against 63-year-old grandmother Linda Gibbons for the crime of handing out pamphlets.

Gibbons has already spent nine years in jail over two decades and is before a judge once again, thanks to the zeal of the crown attorney’s office to stamp out elderly ladies and pamphlets. Ms. Gibbons’ crime is that her protest is against abortion, and she carries it out where women seeking to terminate a pregnancy can see her.

In Canada, your right to march through the streets, shaking your fist or offering Nazi salutes to the police will be upheld as a fundamental expression of free speech. You can agitate to join a Pride parade carrying a banner accusing Israel of being an apartheid state, and sympathetic “progressives” will argue on your behalf while municipal leaders look the other way. But stand on a public sidewalk near an abortion clinic, holding a poster with the image of a baby on it, and the forces of justice come down on you with both feet.

Ms. Gibbons lost a case before the Supreme Court last week in which she argued she shouldn’t face criminal charges for defying a civil order to stay away from abortion clinics. The crown decided to drop that case even though it won, since she’d already been in jail for six months. But she’s still awaiting a judgment on another case, for handing out pamphlets depicting fetuses.

Crown attorney Andrew Cappell told Judge William Wolski Thursday that Ms. Gibbons’ pamphlets were “disturbing” to clients of the clinic. It was also a “nuisance” and interfered with the clients’ right to get their abortion.

“By doing this in front of the clinic, it is intimidating people into not having these abortions performed … intimidating them into not executing a legal right that they have,” Mr. Cappell said.

Cigarette packages in Ontario carry graphic depictions of cancer that are also disturbing – in fact, they’re intended to be so, and anti-smoking organizations want to make them even more so. Cigarettes can be purchased at any variety store. And Toronto regularly creates a nuisance to people trying to go about their business. The city core is frequently jammed with marches, protests, demonstrations or charity run-a-thons and bike-a-thons that prevent non-participants from going conveniently about their tasks. The two main highways into the city are regularly closed so some group or other can raise some money. Everyone is OK with that, but to have Linda Gibbons hand out a pamphlet 30 feet from the door of a clinic is intolerable and has to be stopped.

Daniel Santoro, Ms. Gibbons lawyer, noted that her actions are peaceful, and no more intimidating than an animal rights advocate distributing photos of baby seals near a fur store.

“That’s a totally lawful course of action, and constitutionally protected. What’s the difference here?” he asked the court. “It may be disturbing, but she’s allowed to do that.”

“She is not locking the door, harassing the staff, shining bright lights in the windows to disrupt them … nothing she is doing is disturbing the function of the clinic. If she persuades someone not to go in, so be it,” Mr. Santoro said.

That’s not good enough for the Crown, though. Baby seals are evidently more worthy of protection than baby children. A woman’s right to an abortion is sacrosanct; another woman’s right to protest is a violation of the law. The case against Ms. Gibbons will proceed.

The Crown has ended attempts to keep an anti-abortion activist jailed in a case that reached the country’s highest court last week, but she will remain behind bars as a judge decides whether distributing graphic pamphlets outside an abortion clinic violates a different court order.

Linda Gibbons, a 63-year-old grandmother and devout Christian, has already been jailed for more than nine years over two decades for repeatedly defying a court order that bans picketing within 150 feet of several Toronto abortion clinics.

Last week, she lost her appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, a technical decision that ruled she could be charged criminally for flouting the civil order, which dates back to 1994. The case, related to her arrest in October, 2008, was sent back to the Ontario Court of Justice.

On Thursday, Crown attorney Michael Callaghan told Judge William Wolski the prosecution has chosen not to pursue the case any further. Ms. Gibbons had already served more than six months in jail, the maximum amount of time allowed, waiting for the case to go through the courts.

“When I look at the fact that she has already done more time … it is not in the public interest to move forward and expend more resources,” Mr. Callaghan told the court.

Still, Ms. Gibbons has been in jail since December for breaching a separate injunction by standing in front of a Morgentaler abortion clinic and handing out pamphlets with disturbing pictures of fetuses and pro-life slogans.

The peaceful but unyielding activist was arrested on Dec. 16 for breaching the civil injunction, which dates back to 1999. The permanent court order bars people from specific activities around the Toronto clinic, including interfering and obstructing people entering and exiting the facility, disturbing or interrupting the function of the clinic, intimidating the clinic’s owners, its employees and their clients and creating a “nuisance” within 500 feet.

On Thursday, Crown attorney Andrew Cappell argued that Ms. Gibbon’s presence near the clinic holding materials with “disturbing pictures” of fetuses interfered with the function of the clinic.

He also argued it created a “nuisance” and infringed on the clinic’s clients’ legal right in Canada to have abortions.

“By doing this in front of the clinic, it is intimidating people into not having these abortions performed … intimidating them into not executing a legal right that they have,” Mr. Cappell told the court Thursday.

Ms. Gibbons’ lawyer, Daniel Santoro, argued that his client’s peaceful protest outside the clinic was within her right to freedom of expression.

He likened it to animal rights activists picketing outside a fur coat store, with signs and pamphlets of graphic images of abused animals.

“That’s a totally lawful course of action, and constitutionally protected. What’s the difference here?” he told the court. “It may be disturbing, but she’s allowed to do that.”

Ms. Gibbons has long argued that she has the right to peaceful protest, and she believes that the courts have pursued her because of her unpopular views on abortion.

Mr. Santoro also argued that Ms. Gibbons’ protest did not stop clinic staff from performing their duties.

He said she was on the public sidewalk, roughly 30 feet from the clinic’s main door.

“She is not locking the door, harrassing the staff, shining bright lights in the windows to disrupt them… nothing she is doing is disturbing the function of the clinic. If she persuades someone not to go in, so be it,” Mr. Santoro told the court.

Judge Wolski said he needed more time to consider the case, and will present his decision on July 20.

That means Ms. Gibbons — who was present in court, dressed in a forest green shirt and pants and donning metal-rimmed glasses — goes back to the Vanier Centre for Women in Milton, Ont., for more than a month.

Ms. Gibbons did not show much reaction Thursday, but did pause to smile at five friends who came to support her. They also came prepared with clothes and supplies for her in the event she was released.

Ms. Gibbons told the Post last week if she was found not guilty in Thursday’s hearing, she had planned to visit her 90-year-old mother in B.C.

After the decision was delayed, Ms. Gibbons was “at peace” with the extended legal process, Mr. Santoro said.

“She’s not angry, she’s not overworked, she’s not anxious, she just does her thing. And the courts do what they do, and she just says, ‘Well, so be it. And I’ll move on,’” he said.

Linda Gibbons found out that the Supreme Court of Canada ruled against her Friday while sitting behind bars at the Vanier Centre for Women in Milton, Ont. Ms. Gibbons, a devout Christian, has been in custody since December for picketing in front of an abortion clinic in Toronto two days after her case was heard by the country’s highest court. On and off, she has spent more than 10 years behind bars for her anti-abortion activities, breaking several injunctions over the past 18 years for getting too close to abortion clinics. Friday’s ruling came down as she was being interviewed by National Post reporter Charles Lewis, who broke the news to her. Here is an edited transcript of their conversation:

Q: I guess this is bad news for you. The Supreme Court just ruled against you. What is your reaction? A: I’m not surprised.

Q: But do you have feelings about what just happened to you? A: I think the Supreme Court should assume their responsibility towards unborn life. I’m disappointed the government is shirking its duties to the unborn as well. It’s still murder even if it’s your mother doing it to you. This is morally corrupt.

Q: But what about you? Are you not tired of spending so much time in prison? A: For me it’s a matter that I won’t break my solidarity with the unborn. And my resolve is to continue to speak on their behalf and safeguarding freedom. The real question is, What is the value of life? And what am I willing to do to protect the unborn?

Q: The Supreme Court said Friday that the criminal courts can deal with it, even though the original injunction came out of a civil court. Doesn’t this mean you will continually be arrested and thrown back in jail? A: I’ve saved four babies in here since 2008. Saving those babies justifies my time in here.

J.P. Moczulski for National PostLinda Gibbons at her Toronto home.

Q: What about your own state of mind? Is this how you see your life unfolding? A: I’ve been in prison [on and off] for 10 years and I’m willing to spend another 10 years behind bars. I have a moral responsibility not to obey an unjust law. I am not asking to be arrested for the exercising of my free speech.

Q: Last year, Jim Hughes, president of the anti-abortion group Campaign Life, said he admired what you were doing but did not see the injunction as a major issue. He also said you would be better off counseling women outside of prison. A: This is a personal moral process. Individuals have a moral conscience and people have a right to decide that they will listen to their own conscience. I can understand what other people are saying — that it is better to change the political system or do counselling in the schools. But I believe that the sidewalk in front of the abortion clinic is the last place to stop a murder.

Q: Do you enjoy prison? A: I can think of other things I’d rather be doing. But on a more serious note I am showing the abuse of the unborn children. If I was to stop picketing at the doors of abortion clinics [rather than staying 150 metres away as ordered] that would be moral cowardice. I don’t want the authorities to tell me to stop protecting life.

Q: You’ve been in custody since December for picketing. You go to court this Thursday on that charge. If you are found not guilty, what are your plans? A: I would go to see my 90-year-old mother in B.C. When I get back I’m sure you will find me in front of one of the Toronto clinics.

OTTAWA — The Supreme Court has ruled against a relentless Toronto anti-abortion crusader who has spent more than nine years over two decades in jail for repeatedly violating a civil order to quit picketing outside abortion clinics.

Linda Gibbons, 63, who is in jail again, has long maintained she has a right to peaceful protest and that the courts were unfairly pursuing her because of her unpopular views on abortion.

OTTAWA — Canada’s top court will rule once and for all this week on whether a peaceful but relentless anti-abortion picketer, who has spent nine years in jail over two decades for violating an 18-year-old injunction by waving signs outside abortion clinics, has been treated unfairly by the law.

The decision comes in the wake of a Conservative backbencher motion to re-examine when human life begins and recent media reports that suggest the Prime Minister’s Office is quietly urging members to vote it down when it comes up on the legislative agenda, possibly as early as this month, in a bid to make the divisive issue go away.

At a time when widespread protest over tuition fees in Quebec continue despite attempts to stifle it with legislation, the case also raises questions about how far prosecutors will go to pursue a single demonstrator who happens to hold an unpopular view.

The lawyer for an anti-abortion activist jailed for entering a Toronto abortion clinic last fall is appealing her conviction, saying he thinks the judge may have left the impression of bias during a verbal skirmish in which the judge told his client: “Your God’s wrong.”

Justice S. F. Clements launched a “conditional attack on the Christian God” during the March 21 hearing at the Ontario Court of Justice, in which Mary Wagner was convicted of mischief and breach of probation, apellate lawyer Peter Boushy plans to argue during the forthcoming appeal hearing.

“I think it could be certainly argued on appeal that the justice’s conditional attack on the Christian God, along with the tenor and content of his other comments that day, gives rise to a reasonable apprehension — and I stress the word ‘apprehension’— of bias by [the judge],” Mr. Boushy said in a statement to the Post.

The Full Comment “Brain Half Full” award is offered in recognition of people, institutions or policies that reflect the very dumbest in human endeavor over the course of the year. We prefer “half full” to “half empty” because we are hopeless optimists. Our nominees represent the worst, lowest or most ridiculous “news” events to have tried the patience of sentient human beings. (We’re talking national affairs here, not your cousin Bernie betting the family cottage on Greek bonds.)

And the nominees are…

•People in Vancouver who stood around like idiots while a pack of grinning morons looted stores and posed with their booty in the Stanley Cup riot. The looters were bad enough; the supposedly upstanding citizens who thought it was all a joke and cheered them on need their brains recalibrated to “sensible.”

• The Occupy movement. People lying around in tents in downtown parks because somehow that will combat “corporate greed”, or solve one of the two dozen other complaints they had, which essentially boiled down to: “I want the world to be different, but I don’t want to have to out out any effort myself, other than hanging out in this tent.” In the U.S. there was real reason for protest; in Canada it was mainly, “Hey, look what they’re doing in New York. I wanna do that too.”

• The Quebec couple who couldn’t get a 7-Up in French. Because of bilingualism or something. Lord, get a life, will ya?

• Pat Martin, the ridiculous Winnipeg MP who called for greater civility in Parliament, then told a Tweeter critic: “F*** You.”

• All the people in the world who took some event that upset them, and compared it to Hitler. Like here and here and here and here and here and here and here…
No one is like Hitler, people (except maybe these cats). Anyone who suggests it just looks like a twerp.

• Flotillas to Gaza. How sad do you have to be when the only cause you can find in the world is trying to assist a blood-soaked organization like Hamas undermine the only democratic country in the region? There are lots of good causes, and plenty of Arab needs that deserve support, but offering moral and political reinforcement to a bunch of terrorist fanatics isn’t one of them.

• Whatever rule required that the city of Calgary buy $1.6 million worth of art and put it in a tunnel leading to the airport. Not a pedestrian tunnel, a traffic tunnel, where no one will see it unless they aren’t paying attention to their driving.

• Brigette DePape, the Parlimentary page who knows so little about democracy that she launched a one-person “Stop Harper” protest to show that the “real power to change things lies not with Harper but in the hands of the people” — just days after the government had been freely elected for a third time by the people, and with a bigger victory margin than ever.

• The increasing kindergartenization of the House of Commons, where Conservatives refused to allow Bloc Québécois and Green party MPs to speak in the Commons on Remembrance Day; Liberal and New Democrat MPs insisted Conservative MPs should stay away from a memorial service for the victims of Marc Lépine, because they oppose the long-gun registry; the Conservatives admitted sponsoring a dirty tricks campaign against Montreal MP Irwin Cotler (and then defended it as “free speech”); the government refused to accredit opposition members for a climate change conference, then criticized an NDP MP for not attending; Justin Trudeau called Peter Kent a “piece of sh–;” and a Conservative MP argued that all future Government Operations Committee should be held behind closed doors.

And all that between October and December.

Chris Wattie/ReutersFather of the bride Michael Middleton, leads his daughter Catherine down the aisle to be wed to Prince William, followed by Pippa Middleton during their wedding at Westminster Abbey.

• Whatever convinced Justin Trudeau to show up for work looking like a stand-in for one of the three Musketeers.

• The ongoing persecution of Linda Gibbons, 63, for the crime of holding a sign near an abortion clinic. Gibbons has spent a total of nine years in jail since 1994 because she persists in standing within 150 metres of Toronto abortion clinics, holding a sign that says: “Why Mom? When I Have So Much Love to Give.” Says an abortion activist: “Why should they have to put up with that? And why should the staff have to put up with someone standing there mumbling at them? Most people can’t imagine what’s that like. But I’ll tell you, it’s not a nice feeling.’’ I’ll bet … especially when you’re in a hurry to get rid of the baby.

• The genius who advised Jean Charest he didn’t have to call an inquiry to get to the bottom of corruption allegations permeating the Quebec construction industry, and could tough it out. Probably the same guy who told federal Liberals not to worry about the Sponsorship scandal, because everyone would forget about it in a few days.

• This Hour Has 22 Minutes, for sending Mary Walsh to stand in Rob Ford’s driveway and wave her sword at him. a) Because Marg Delhunty is so side-splittingly hilarious b) Because Rob Ford’s the kind of guy who’ll think it’s funny to be mocked by the CBC at 8 a.m. c) Because it’s a good idea to get the CBC caught in a political spitting match when the federal Tories are just itching for an excuse to get nasty nastier.

• Those members of the Parliamentary press gallery who felt it was important to make an issue out of the fact some members of the NDP got seat upgrades on their way to Jack Layton’s funeral. Someone was actually required to ask Olivia Chow for a comment. Good news judgment on that one, guys.

• Toronto’s ongoing crusade against the hot dog. It began when the ubernannies in Mayor David Miller’s brain trust decided Torontonians should be force-fed nuts and berries and other health items, and did its best to harass hot dog carts from the sidewalk. It’s continuing under the Brothers Ford (who, lets admit it, look like they don’t miss many meals, and we’re not talking sushi). Vendors have already been driven from Bloor Street, where chi-chi ladies evidently don’t like the temptation of a grilled weenie when they’re trying to maintain their anorexia. Lately, cart owners on Front Street have also been advised to look elsewhere for work. These are independent small businesses, and the reason there are so many is because there’s lots of demand. People want hot dogs. Why that’s such an issue at city hall is a mystery.

Matthew Sherwood for National PostPrince William and Kate Middleton in an Aston Martin.

Re: Anti-Abortion Crusader Arrested Once Again, Dec. 17.
Do we really need five police officers to arrest a 63-year-old grandmother who stands outside an abortion facility holding a sign with the words “Why Mom? When I have so much love to give”? Is she really a criminal, a threat to our society? Why are those in the business of doing abortions afraid of this woman?
Linda Gibbons has spent most of her life offering help to women who find themselves dealing with an unplanned pregnancy. She has seen them confused, frightened and emotionally distraught. Linda stands on the sidewalk with her sign, hoping that she will get women to rethink their decisions and consider the other options.
I have had the privilege of watching Linda counsel a young woman who was planning to have an abortion. I can only think of one reason why abortion advocates are afraid of Linda — they are afraid she may be successful in putting them out of business. We can only pray. Rhonda Wood, Brampton, Ont.

I believe Linda Gibbons is to the pro-life movement what William Wilberforce was to the anti-slavery movement. Abortion is legal only because no new law has been enacted, as the Supreme Court suggested could be done when it struck down the one in force at the time. There was also no law against slavery, but that did not make it right. Since the majority of Canadians in poll after poll express dissatisfaction with the current absence of any law to deal with abortion at any stage of pregnancy, it is high time for a parliamentary debate on the subject. Jessica White, West Vancouver.

It’s funny how the Toronto police were quick to send five police officers to arrest a 63-year-old woman for peacefully protesting against abortion outside of an abortion clinic, when they are so slow to react on other occasions. The police simply watched as rioters destroyed police cars and private property during the G-20; they stood idly by in Caledonia, Ont., when the community was held hostage by native protesters for months; they did nothing for a month as protesters illegally occupied a public park in Toronto.
To serve and protect … special interest groups? Actually, it’s not so funny. It is a sad and disturbing perversion of justice. John Van Dyk, Vineland, Ont.

A ‘pro-life pedestrian’ says abortion is not the issue

Re: The Imprisonment Of Linda Gibbons, editorial, Dec. 15.
As a pro-life pedestrian, I object to the tone of your recent editorial about Linda Gibbons.
Abortion isn’t the issue here — the issue is whether Ms. Gibbons’ so-called right to free speech trumps people’s right to travel. The right to walk down the sidewalk unhindered is so basic we hardly give it a second thought. Ms. Gibbons needs to show more respect for the common law rights of others.
If she continues her pattern of abuse, the police can lock her up and throw away the key, as far as I’m concerned. George Hills, Fort McMurray, Alta.

Dead soldiers, maimed NHLers

Re: Down For The Count, Cam Cole, Dec. 17.
The full-page of photos of NHL players knocked out of the game with concussions bears a haunting similarity to groups of photos of Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan. Both have suffered for their chosen profession: The soldiers have made the ultimate sacrifice while the NHLers are likely facing an uncertain future as they battle the present and future consequences of their injuries. Risking death in a far-off land on behalf of your country is one thing; risking your future health and well-being in a professional sport is quite another. The NHL has to wake up and take serious action against headshots and fighting. Tim Morawetz, Toronto.

Tories ‘concerned’ about jailed man

Re: Letter Not Enough To Free Farmer: MP, Dec. 15.
The Canadian government is very concerned about Henk Tepper, the New Brunswick man jailed in Lebanon. Canadian officials, and I, have been in active contact with the Lebanese government on Mr. Tepper’s behalf over the past several months.
New Brunswick Senator Pierrette has suggested “one sentence” would get Mr. Tepper home. She is wrong. Her assertion is unhelpful and does not reflect the information she received when she was briefed by Foreign Affairs officials. Such grandstanding is both inappropriate and potentially obstructive to the efforts of Canadian officials.
Canada is a sovereign nation; other countries cannot intervene in our judicial affairs. Similarly, Canada cannot intervene in the judicial affairs of a sovereign country, nor can it seek to exempt Canadian citizens from the due process of local law.
This is why we continue to engage with senior Lebanese authorities to register our interest in the timely handling of Mr. Tepper’s situation. Diane Ablonczy, Minister of State of Foreign Affairs (Americas and Consular Affairs), Ottawa.

‘I just a rude nut’

Re: I Met Justin Trudeau Once And The Scene Was Farcical, Dave Bidini, Dec. 17.
At the start of his Saturday column, Dave Bidini made a common error in terminology. “POS” is not an anagram, it is an acronym. An acronym is a word formed from the first letters of a phrase — in this case the phrase (“piece of s—”) being attributed to potty-mouth Trudeau the Younger. An anagram is a new phrase created from the same letters as an existing phrase. For instance, the letters in “Justin Trudeau” can be rearranged to form the anagram “I just a rude nut.” Jonathan Skrimshire, Vancouver.

The ‘land of the free’ still is

Re: America’s Zionist Mission, Jonathan Kay, Dec. 16.
Jonathan Kay has again gone overboard in trying to discover the root cause of U.S. support for Israel. Americans are serious democratic Christians who are therefore supportive of a free and democratic Jewish state. In addition, America, democracy and freedom are at war with radical Islam, an ideology that is trying to destroy both the United States and Israel.
Contrary to what Mr. Kay suggests, the United States is still a uniquely free country. It has not lost its stature as an icon of freedom because of Guantamamo, CIA prisons or the Patriot Act, but has been forced to use these procedures as a way to protect its democracy and freedom. Jonathan Usher, Toronto.

The world has lost a great writer …

Re: Goodbye To A Great Columnist, editorial, Dec. 17.
I am grateful to National Post for introducing Christopher Hitchens to readers. From this great intellectual I learned that fear is the most potent foe of freedom. We have lost a very precious personality of our times. Mankind needs more fearless souls like him to challenge the dogmas the keep millions in stagnation. Akbar Hussain, Toronto.

Christopher Hitchens’ thoughts and words will resonate long after his untimely death. He provoked people to stop and think. He gave the notion of “freedom of thought and speech” its most deepest of meanings. His loss is inestimable.
Marvin Sharpe, Victoria.

Christopher Hitchens wrote the kind of review essays that could transform a six-hour plane delay at an airport into a guilty pleasure. He was at his best when not writing on political or theological matters. I think he would forgive me for saying this: My god, the man could write! Ron Charach, Toronto.

Who will defend the atheist view now? Oh come forth all ye faithless, for these are big shoes to fill. Gaston Goulet, Gatineau, Que.

It is pointless to comment on Christopher Hitchens’ views on religion, as no one can prove anything regarding belief. What I can say with certainty is that any time your paper carried one of his columns, it was the first thing I read.
In some ways, I feel a personal loss from news of his death. Alex Taylor, Toronto.

… or has it?

There is no question that Christopher Hitchens is the “patron saint” of atheists, of which the National Post appears to have its fair share. This is shown by the large amount of space the paper devoted to the man in your Saturday edition. I have often wondered why Mr. Hitchens never changed his first name, which means “Christ bearer.” Could it be that he did this so that he could score a few points with his Maker if he discovered he was wrong when he died? George Heron, Ajax, Ont.

I find it shocking that your editorial and all the eulogies the Post published about Christopher Hitchens ignore the single most important fact — he was a professional hatemonger, who devoted most of his energy to fomenting hatred against the greater part of mankind (known as believers). Pavel Sorokin, Vancouver.

Christoper Hitchens said the only thing that would disappoint him was that he would not be around to read the nice things the papers would say about him. Those same papers freely gave him space to ridicule, mock and spit in the face of everyone who believed in Jesus. What more would God have to say to him as his soul left his body than, “Depart from me. I never knew you.” Gwen Woods, Mission, B.C.

With all of the accolades being heaped on Christopher Hitchens, he may have approved of a few other adjectives given his cynicism, such as, “narcissistic,” “neurotic,” “self-loathing,” “addicted,” “truculent” and “egoistic.” He was a train wreck in life and death, with no enduring legacy. Chris Topple, Oshawa, Ont.

After a long battle with cancer, hardened atheist Christopher Hitchens finally went to meet his omnipotent Maker. He had a certain courage. But there is a different kind of courage; the kind that’s born in heaven. It’s not the courage of heroics or bravado but the kind that many readers, including myself, and God know about. Paul Kokoski, Hamilton, Ont.

So it is written: God doesn’t like gays, or lobster

Re: Jesus Would Not Have Run A Gay-Straight Club, letter to the editor, Dec. 17.
As Reverend David J. Brown writes, the Book of Leviticus does indeed condemn many sexual practices, probably even the missionary position. But I hope the reverend gentleman follows the many injunctions as laid down in that book, including Leviticus 19:19, which prohibits the wearing of poly-cotton blends (“You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind. You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material”). God does not approve of cheap dress shirts.
And don’t get Him started on lobster thermidor (“And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you, Leviticus 11:10) Brian Caines, Ottawa.

Niqab a problem for both sexes

Re: Niqab Compromise, letter to the editor, Dec. 16.
In order to resolve the seemingly intractable problem of veiled women during citizenship ceremonies, letter-writer Andrea Jomha suggests a compromise: Have “women remove the veil … in a room where there are only female government officials.”
Critics of the custom of veiling women almost exclusively talk about the denigration of women that motivates Muslim men to cover up their chattel. Equally important, however, is the other motivational twin: The denigration of men. The insistence of many Muslims on hiding their women’s faces is predicated on the belief that men are sexually so excitable by female facial beauty that they cannot perform their normal tasks. In the case of citizenship ceremonies, judges and clerks would lose their social control in view of, in most cases, Arabic female pulchritude.
They would not only stutter and stammer when reading the oath, but probably have impure thoughts and do everything that should be confined to private bedrooms of properly married couples, possibly with four women simultaneously (as limited by the Koran).
Where are all these irresistible Arabic beauties that I have never seen? Are they all behind these obnoxious camouflages? If our planet will not end up in an apocalyptic plunge into the sun, it may well drown in its ludicrousness that makes dignified human life impossible. Heinz Klatt, London, Ont.

Re: Look Beyond The Veil, letter to the editor, Dec. 17.
There is a large difference between a beard or a hijab, and a niqab.
Even if she is pictured wearing a hijab, viewers know it is Mother Mary because the hijab allows us to see her face. The same is also true of a beard, but cannot be said of a niqab or a burka, neither of which will permit identification of the wearer.
It’s not the wearing of cultural (not religious) dress that is causing the problem with citizenship; it’s the fact that we cannot identify the person taking the oath. Susan Gavin, London, Ont.

Size is relative

Re: Some Kind Of Monster, Chris Knight, Dec. 16.
In his movie review of Young Adult, Chris Knight tells us of a fictional town “so small its citizens refer to Minneapolis as the ‘big city.’ ” The population of the greater metropolitan area of Minneapolis exceeds three million. Can we assume that any city smaller than Toronto fails to qualify as “big”?
One can only wonder at the mirth Mr. Knight might make of Canadians who think that places like Vancouver or Winnipeg are “big cities.” Neil Edmunds, Calgary.

TORONTO – Two days after appearing at a Supreme Court of Canada hearing on how the criminal justice system has dealt with her anti-abortion picketing, Linda Gibbons was arrested again Friday in Toronto.

Ms. Gibbons, who is 63, was arrested at a Morgentaler abortion clinic, by at least five police officers, for defying the same civil court order she has been breaking for 17 years. She suggested they would be better off taking the clinic staff into custody: “They are the ones who have blood on their shoes,” Ms. Gibbons said.

A Morgentaler clinic spokesman was not immediately available for comment.

Since 1994, when a temporary injunction forbade protesters to get within 150 metres of several Toronto abortion clinics, Ms. Gibbons has continually broken the ban with her one-woman protests. She routinely holds a sign with a drawing of a baby with the words: “Why Mom? When I Have So Much Love to Give.”

Over the years she has spent at least nine years behind bars, but much of that time could have been avoided: In each case she was offered release if she would sign a pledge not to continue protesting, but she refused.

In June, she was released after a 28-month stint behind bars without conditions. But in August she was arrested again for once again breaking the ban. She was released, however, on a technicality, her lawyer, Daniel Santoro, said at the time.

On Wednesday, Mr. Santoro argued at the Supreme Court that Ms. Gibbons case should never have been dealt with in the criminal courts and that the Ontario Crown overstepped its bounds by involving itself in a civil matter.

Mr. Santoro has argued repeatedly that Ms. Gibbons should have appeared in front of the civil court that initially issued the ban. He has also argued it is ridiculous that a “temporary” injunction be in place for so long. If she were to appear in front of the civil court, a case could be made that the injunction has outlived its usefulness and so could be quashed, he has said in interviews.

Matthew Sherwood for National PostLinda Gibbons protesting outside of The Morgentaler Clinic in Toronto on Friday.

Ms. Gibbons told Postmedia News on Wednesday: “I want these injunctions brought down. The Crown is using these injunctions to stifle pro-life activism.”

Last year, Celia Posyniak, who worked at a Calgary abortion clinic, said she had no sympathy for the likes of Ms. Gibbons. She said women who are about to have an abortion have made an intimate and legal decision, she said. And so there is no reason they should have to deal with six protesters, or even one.

“Why should they have to put up with that? And why should the staff have to put up with someone standing there mumbling at them?” said Ms. Posyniak. “Most people can’t imagine what’s that like. But I’ll tell you, it’s not a nice feeling.’’

OTTAWA — Wearing a white shirt, a long, flower-patterned skirt, and holding a Bible under her arm, Linda Gibbons does not look like most people’s idea of a hardened criminal.

Yet the 63-year-old spectacled grandmother has been arrested about 20 times and spent more than nine years in jail over the past two decades for protesting in front of abortion clinics.

On Wednesday, Gibbons spent the morning at the Supreme Court of Canada in a bid to have her most recent conviction quashed.

While her lawyers made technical arguments about the scope of a law that saw her violation of a 17-year-old civil injunction turn into criminal proceedings, she told reporters the courts have targeted her because of her views on abortion.

“I want these injunctions brought down,” said Gibbons, one of the country’s most prolific anti-abortion protesters.

“They are not just being misapplied or misdirected in court procedure. . . . There’s the abuse of process. . . . The Crown is using these injunctions to stifle pro-life activism.”

Gibbons was first charged in 1994 after an Ontario civil court judge ordered that she and more than 20 other people could not picket within 150 metres of several Toronto abortion clinics. Read more

Most Canadians would have a hard time identifying with Linda Gibbons. Her life story is unique, to say the least. Born in Alberta, the 63-year-old Toronto woman has spent eight years behind bars since 1994. Her crime: Protesting too close to abortion clinics, in defiance with a temporary civil injunction put in place by a Toronto court almost 18 years ago.

How she got to this point is a long, colourful story. Ms. Gibbons has not always been an anti-abortion crusader. In her earlier years, she had several children both in and out of wedlock, and even terminated one pregnancy. Years after her own abortion, she found herself drifting back to the Protestant faith she had lost. Feeling tremendous guilt over the fetus she had aborted, she asked God why He had not brought her to the church sooner.

Many of us, in moments of pain and need, have asked similar questions of whatever god we believe in (or, often enough, don’t believe in). Unlike most, however, Ms. Gibbons claims she received an answer: “I gave you your life. And I gave you a child. The child you took was mine, too.”

From that day forward, she’s had a mission: Abortion is murder, and being conducted at a rate fast enough to constitute genocide (Ms. Gibbons freely compares abortion in Canada to Hitler’s Holocaust of Jews and other “undesirables”).

But her mission brings her in conflict with the law. After Canada’s abortion law was struck down in 1988, there have been incidents of verbal and physical intimidation, even violence, outside abortion clinics or aimed at their staffs. Reasonable steps to prevent such incidents were called for. Toronto’s 18-year-old “temporary” injunction bans protesting directly outside an abortion clinic — even across the street is usually acceptable. But that’s not good enough for Ms. Gibbons. Though she has never been accused of threatening or abusive behaviour, she has flouted the temporary injunction by standing with a protest placard directly by the doors of abortion clinics.

Related

For this, she has been arrested approximately 20 times. Sometimes the charges have been quashed or thrown out. Sometimes she’s been sent to jail for violating a court order or obstructing a peace officer. On several occasions, while incarcerated, she’s been offered her freedom if she’d sign a statement promising to avoid causing further mischief. She has refused to do so, and has spent more cumulative time in custody — eight years — than many people convicted of serious, violent crimes. When she’s finally released after each arrest, typically she’ll be back at an abortion clinic within hours or days. And the process will start again.

Like I said — she’s a hard person to identify with. But however odd her behaviour may seem to many, it’s hard to find moral or legal fault with it. Ms. Gibbons has the same rights of any of us to peaceful protest and freedom of expression, and as stated above, has never been accused of harassing or threatening anyone. Her crime is her presence, and proximity. For this, a temporary order intended to prevent violence has, over almost two decades, seen Ms. Gibbons arrested and jailed repeatedly.

This is madness. As her lawyer has said, given that the temporary injunction was put in place by a civil court, Ms. Gibbons should have been dealt with there. Fines could have been levied, community service ordered. Or, perhaps the validity of the injunction itself could have been successfully challenged. But there has been no opportunity to do that, because using the criminal courts has been the default response.

Contrast the treatment of Ms. Gibbons to that of the recently dispersed Occupy Toronto protest. That, too, was a peaceful protest that violated relatively minor city laws. If anything, the Occupy Toronto movement, through their unsought but unavoidable damaging of St. James Park and disruption to local businesses, was actually more destructive than anything Ms. Gibbons has been accused of. But while Occupy Toronto was politely left alone for long weeks before finally being peacefully dispersed, Ms. Gibbons is simply arrested and locked up.

Abortion is undeniably controversial. And there are certainly arguments to be made that in 1994, establishing a small, protected bubble around abortion clinics may have been a reasonable step to take in a tense environment. But now, in the final days of 2011, there is no justification for the temporary injunction to be used ever again against Ms. Gibbons or a similarly peaceful protester. To do so is to abuse the coercive power vested by the state in our police and courts. It must stop. Yes, Ms. Gibbons is violating the law, but the completely disproportionate response of the state has been the only injustice.

Ms. Gibbons’ lawyer will go before the Supreme Court today to argue that a civil injunction should never have been settled through the criminal court system. Though the Court may have a hard time understanding what motivates someone like Linda Gibbons, they should have no trouble agreeing that she has been wronged.

After two decades of myriad arrests, hours upon hours of court time and nearly nine years on and off behind bars, Linda Gibbons, the country’s most prolific anti-abortion protestor, gets her day before the country’s highest court Wednesday.

Daniel Santoro, Ms. Gibbons’ lawyer, will tell the Supreme Court of Canada his 63-year-old client was abused by a criminal justice system that overstepped its bounds.

He will not argue about Ms. Gibbons’ rights to freedom of speech nor freedom of religion, but that the criminal court should never have been involved in something that began as a civil matter.

“A civil court could have used a scalpel instead of a butcher’s knife to come out with a better solution,” Mr. Santoro said.

Related

Mr. Santoro said he will tell the court that the Crown did all this in pursuit of a someone whose only crime was to break a 17-year-old temporary civil injunction by holding a poster too close to a Toronto abortion clinic.

In August, 1994, a civil court in Toronto placed a temporary injunction around several abortion clinics at the request of the provincial attorney-general. The injunction was brought in only six years after the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the country’s abortion laws, and was meant to cool things off during a volatile time.

For the years immediately after the abortion ruling, a number of clinics were subjected to vandalism and even a fire-bombing. Many of the women and staff entering clinics were harassed by protestors.

J.P. Moczulski for National PostThe man has warmth, charm and bags of talent. But there’s still something very forced and insubstantial about <em>Hugh Jackman in Concert</em>. It starts — well, actually it starts with the audience applauding the house lights just for going down. It’s that kind of evening, that kind of house. But the performance proper begins with the star singing <em>Oh, What a Beautiful Mornin’</em>, starting from the wings and carrying on with it as he enters.
This of course is how Curly sings the song at the start of <em>Oklahoma!</em>, and Curly is a role that Hugh Jackman has played at the National Theatre in London. But there’s no suggestion that he’s playing it here; the song is just an opening number, and rather a strange one to sing out of character at 8 p.m. It also gets interspersed with the singer buttonholing the audience, and saying how happy he is to be here: a little early in the game for that kind of schtick.<!--more-->
It turns out to be a self-referential evening, with every song pegged to something in the actor’s life story. The running gag, mostly submerged but sometimes acknowledged, is that here is a performer whose fans know him mostly as Wolverine in the <em>X-Men</em> movies, but who has also had a substantial career in musical theatre and is here to prove it. At one point he tells us that the studio bosses were worried about him doing this show because they want him to put on weight for the next instalment of the franchise, and singing and dancing, especially dancing, might make him lose it.
On this slender pretext he goes into an abbreviated version of <em>I Won’t Dance</em>, followed by snippets of about a dozen other numbers on the same theme. They’re all great songs, but he never gets to do justice to any of them. The medley format puts paid to that; well, that and the implausibility of the hook in the first place.
The whole show is snookered by that kind of thing. It’s a double-bind: none of the songs seem to be there for their own sake, and the sakes for which they are there seem manufactured. Even when he sings the <em>Soliloquy</em> from <em>Carousel</em> (Billy Bigelow is another role he’s actually played, in concert at Carnegie Hall), the performance is superficial; he gives a ringing account of the song’s bravura climax, but on the way there’s no change in feeling between the sections about his unborn son and those about his unborn daughter.
About the only song in the evening of which he takes personal possession is, weirdly enough, <em>I Got Rhythm</em>, done briefly as part of a tribute to old movie musicals. The autobiographical excuse for this is that when he was a kid he used to watch them every Saturday afternoon on Australian TV; the segment is introduced by a clip of the old 20th Century Fox logo. This, too, got inexplicable applause, though the movie-pedant in me can’t resist pointing out that none of the subsequent songs are from a Fox movie. They include <em>Luck Be a Lady</em>, which again gets short shrift, textually and emotionally, even though Sky Masterson is a role I would like to see Jackman play.
I’d like, for that matter, to have seen his Curly, and even his Peter Allen in <em>The Boy from Oz</em>, which he did on Broadway and which gets sizable representation here. He can’t reproduce Allen’s sly timing on his self-defining line (“For those of you who are wondering, is he or isn’t he? Yes, I am Australian”) but he manages a surprising transformation, just by changing into a lacy shirt and shimmering. He does well by Allen’s songs, too, though none of them really stand up except for <em>Quiet Please, There’s a Lady on Stage</em>, which gives us the triple tweak of Jackman paying tribute to Allen paying tribute to Judy Garland.
The spoken stuff includes the old bit of pulling a hapless male up from the audience to cavort with the dancing girls. (There are two in the show, plus an impressive big band.) On the first night the guy looked far from hapless, since he was Mirvish Productions’ own John Karastamatis, who may be the coolest PR man in town. It’s hard to believe this wasn’t a set up, but it seemed spontaneous, and they kept it going for an impressively long time.
Jackman also says some funny things about Hollywood and some stirring ones about his home country, both its landscape and its population. In these he communicates real pride, real awe. But, but, but … what’s <em>Over the Rainbow</em> doing there? Couldn’t they find something more indigenous, or at least less familiar? Showbiz strikes again.
So there’s the paradox. Quiet please, there’s a grounded guy onstage, but he’s swimming in glitz. It’s probably the culture’s fault, rather than Jackman’s, that he’s presented as a legend when he’s too young to be one.
Anyway, the real ones — Frank Sinatra, say, or Rosemary Clooney — don’t trade on it; they didn’t play their legends, they played off them. Jackman arrives without a built-in personal repertoire, and he hasn’t managed to create one; it’s all fragments. For an encore he did <em>Mack the Knife</em>, and it was a virtual cover of the Bobby Darin version. Is that how he wants us to remember him?
<em>• Hugh Jackman in Concert runs until July 17. For tickets, call 416-872-1212 or visit <a title="mirvish.ca" href="mirvish.ca" target="_blank">mirvish.ca</a>.</em>

Ms. Gibbons has been arrested roughly 20 times for breaking the order. At one point she spent more than 700 days straight behind bars.

In July, 2010, while behind bars at the Vanier Centre for Women in Milton, Ont., Ms. Gibbons said she has a Charter and God-given right to counsel against abortion, to stand in front of an abortion clinic and offer advice. She said to do otherwise was no different than watching Nazis dragging Jews out of their home in 1938 and saying nothing.

‘They could have ended the injunction, saying it was no longer necessary, they could have also even made an exception for her to protest peacefully in the bubble’

“What people like her do is creepy,” Celia Posyniak, an abortion clinic director in Calgary, said last year. “They don’t even have to say anything. It’s intimidating just to have someone standing there.”

“Why is it acceptable to intimidate women making a personal and legal decision?”

Mr. Santoro’s argument is expected to be that Ms. Gibbons should have been brought before the civil court that issued the temporary injunction in 1994 and that court would have had remedies to deal with his client.

“A civil court could would have had many more solutions,” he said this week. “They could have ended the injunction, saying it was no longer necessary, they could have also even made an exception for her to protest peacefully in the bubble. They have a lot more latitude in dealing with this kind of case. All the criminal court can do is convict or not, they can’t make a decision about the viability of a 17-year-old injunction.’’

A representative from the provincial Crown’s office will also be there to argue it was justified to use the criminal court to deal with Ms. Gibbons.

A decision is not expected to come from the Supreme Court for several months.

Mr. Santoro said it is rare for the criminal courts to pursue a single case of someone breaking a civil injunction for so long. He has argued in the past that the Crown knew it could not make a civil case for a permanent injunction and so has dodged the issue by charging Ms. Gibbons under the Criminal Code.

“They have used the criminal process as a strategy to avoid an inquest on the civil side,” Mr. Santoro earlier this year.

If you’re a foetus-to-be, you really don’t want to be conceived anywhere in the jurisdiction of the Canadian courts.

Canada is a great place. I read somewhere this week (sorry, can’t find the link) that if you’re among the lowest income group in the U.S., you’re still better off than 68% of the rest of the world. I bet that’s even more true for Canada, where the safety net is bigger and wider. You just have to make it out of the womb, and live long enough that a Canadian court won’t automatically side with your mother if she decides to take your life.

We are famously lenient when it comes to abortion. Abortion is acceptable in Canada for any reason at any time. While there is no penalty for ending an unborn child’s life, if you turn up outside an abortion clinic with a protest sign, you can get hauled off to jail. Ask Linda Gibbons. Ending a child’s life is more acceptable than objecting to it.

Even if you make it out of the delivery room, your life isn’t safe. In a decision on Thursday, the Supreme Court reached a decision that means women can continue to use infanticide resulting from postpartum depression as a defence against the charge of murder. The penalty for infanticide is generally much more lenient than for murder. Infanticide carries a maximum of five years in jail; a murder conviction can mean life.

The decision came in the case of a woman who was found guilty by an Ontario judge of infanticide – rather than murder – for killing two of her babies. By refusing to hear an appeal, the court let the infanticide defence stand.

In seeking the appeal, the Crown argued that infanticide is an outdated notion introduced to reflect the views of Canadian society 63 years ago on the difficulties young, unwed mothers may face. Canada is hardly the same place it was in 1948, and the stigma of giving birth out of wedlock (or in any other situation considered “shameful” in an earlier era) isn’t the same the same. Is there any situation any more in which giving birth is considered shameful?

But the court wouldn’t hear the appeal.

“This decision does not let women off the hook,” [said Joanna Birenbaum, legal director of the Women’s Legal Defence and Action Fund]. “Rather, it recognizes a woman convicted of infanticide was under serious stress during and directly after giving birth, and allows the courts to put her crime into context.”

Lucky women. They have great defences before the law. Immense effort is put into safeguarding their rights. Too bad about the babies. In Canada, they just don’t count.